Arguments against the Bergdahl deal are not without merit, and this was a very tough call.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is not a sympathetic figure. He surely is not the type of heroic POW the White House would have preferred to rescue in a high-profile prisoner swap.

By most accounts, the free-spirited young soldier from Idaho became disillusioned with the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, deliberately left his base and stumbled into capture by the Taliban, which held him for almost five years.

Making matters worse, several soldiers died during the frantic hunt for Bergdahl after he disappeared. Whether he was or wasn't the cause, many of his fellow soldiers hold him responsible.

So it's hardly surprising that the euphoria at Bergdahl's release on Saturday has given way to angry second-guessing, particularly over the price the administration paid to get him home. Five senior Talban militants were released from the Guantanamo prison camp in Cuba and sent to Qatar with flimsy assurances that they'll be barred from travel for a year.

Critics suggest that Bergdahl didn't deserve the efforts to free him, that the price paid to get him back was far too high and that the prisoner swap violates the principle against negotiating with terrorists.

These arguments are not without merit, and this was a very tough call. But there's another principle at play here that trumps the others.

Bergdahl's rescue fulfilled the military's most important promise to anyone who goes in harm's way under the American flag: No servicemember gets left behind. Nothing underlines the credibility of that pledge more than this difficult swap. And that should be reassuring to all of the nation's volunteer forces and their families.

The critics should ask themselves how they would have felt, and what they would have said, had the administration simply allowed an ailing U.S. soldier to die in enemy hands.

As for the freed Taliban prisoners, international law would likely have increased pressure for their release, perhaps in a matter of months, as U.S. involvement in the Afghanistan War winds down.

And as for negotiating with terrorists, presidents don't do it — except when they do. Ronald Reagan, for example, bargained with Iranian militants in 1985 to free U.S. hostages in Lebanon.

When he gets home, Bergdahl shouldn't get a pass for breaking Army rules, if that's what he did. It was reassuring to hear Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, say Wednesday that officials "will not look away from misconduct if it occurred."

This deal will look better if it helps leverage broader negotiations with the Taliban to end the war, though that hope seems to be fading as militants calculate they can wait out the U.S. exit. Even so, this difficult, imperfect swap was worth doing.

To paraphrase former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, you exchange the prisoners you have, not the prisoners you might want.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.